Identifying false positives when targeting students at risk of dropping out

ABSTRACT Inefficient targeting of students at risk of dropping out might explain why dropout-reducing efforts often have no or mixed effects. In this study, we present a new method which uses a series of machine learning algorithms to efficiently identify students at risk and makes the sensitivity/precision trade-off inherent in targeting students for dropout prevention explicit. Data of a Dutch vocational education institute is used to show how out-of-sample machine learning predictions can be used to formulate invitation rules in a way that targets students at risk more effectively, thereby facilitating early detection for effective dropout prevention.

[1]  Matthias J. Sjerps,et al.  Balancing Trade‐Offs in the Detection of Primary Schools at Risk , 2021 .

[2]  Chris van Klaveren,et al.  Early warning systems for more effective student counselling in higher education: Evidence from a Dutch field experiment , 2021 .

[3]  Chris van Klaveren,et al.  The Higher Education Enrollment Decision: Feedback on Expected Study Success and Updating Behavior , 2018, Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness.

[4]  Dario Sansone Beyond Early Warning Indicators: High School Dropout and Machine Learning , 2017, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics.

[5]  Jevin D. West,et al.  Predicting Student Dropout in Higher Education , 2016, ArXiv.

[6]  Lindsay C. Page,et al.  Improving College Access in the United States: Barriers and Policy Responses , 2015 .

[7]  Jennifer Freeman,et al.  Examining the Impact of Policy and Practice Interventions on High School Dropout and School Completion Rates , 2015 .

[8]  P. Crosta,et al.  Improving the Targeting of Treatment: Evidence from College Remediation. NBER Working Paper No. 18457. , 2012 .

[9]  Olga Rodriguez,et al.  Development, Discouragement, or Diversion? New Evidence on the Effects of College Remediation Policy , 2012, Education Finance and Policy.

[10]  J. Valentine,et al.  Keeping At-Risk Students in School , 2011 .

[11]  Cecilia S. Lyche Taking on the Completion Challenge: A Literature Review on Policies to Prevent Dropout and Early School Leaving , 2010 .

[12]  B. Long,et al.  Does Remediation Work for All Students? How the Effects of Postsecondary Remedial and Developmental Courses Vary by Level of Academic Preparation , 2010 .

[13]  Laura E. Rumbley,et al.  Trends in Global Higher Education: Tracking an Academic Revolution: A Report Prepared for the UNESCO 2009 World Conference on Higher Education , 2010 .

[14]  S. Lim,et al.  Why Students Drop Out of School: A Review of 25 Years of Research , 2008 .

[15]  Andreas Christmann,et al.  Support vector machines , 2008, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery Handbook.

[16]  Juan Carlos Calcagno,et al.  The Impact of Postsecondary Remediation Using a Regression Discontinuity Approach: Addressing Endogenous Sorting and Noncompliance , 2008 .

[17]  Philip Oreopoulos,et al.  Incentives and Services for College Achievement: Evidence from a Randomized Trial , 2007, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[18]  Susan M. Dynarski,et al.  Building the Stock of College-Educated Labor , 2005, The Journal of Human Resources.

[19]  D. Ruppert The Elements of Statistical Learning: Data Mining, Inference, and Prediction , 2004 .

[20]  P. Murtaugh,et al.  PREDICTING THE RETENTION OF UNIVERSITY STUDENTS , 1999 .

[21]  P. Costa,et al.  Empirical and theoretical status of the five-factor model of personality traits , 2008 .

[22]  S. Srivastava,et al.  The Big Five Trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. , 1999 .